MedicalResearch.com Interview with:
[caption id="attachment_22873" align="alignleft" width="150"]

Dr. Eric Secemsky[/caption]
Eric Alexander Secemsky, MD, MSc
Fellow in Cardiovascular Medicine
Massachusetts General Hospital
Harvard Medical School
Smith Center for Outcomes Research in Cardiology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center
MedicalResearch.com: What is the background for this study?
Dr. Secemsky: Strategies to reduce bleeding, such as the selective use of procedural anticoagulants, have become an integral component of current percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) practice to decrease adverse outcomes. For instance, previous randomized clinical trials had demonstrated that use of bivalirudin, a direct thrombin inhibitor, reduces major bleeding events following PCI among patients presenting with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) compared with unfractionated heparin (UFH). These findings resulted in a major increase in
bivalirudin use during PCI.
However, more recent trials have contradicted these results and created uncertainty as to the relative safety and effectiveness of bivalirudin therapy. In addition, current United States guidelines do not endorse a primary antithrombotic strategy during PCI, leaving the choice of procedural anticoagulant to the discretion of the physician operator. As such, we wanted to determine how bivalirudin was currently being used among United States PCI operators and how usage may have changed in light of these trial findings.